Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Water flouridation

Berrilium - 4-6-2012 at 09:31

I was reading up about water flouridation, and like many things on the internet, a lot of it was scientifically innacurate and based on ignorant opinions.

What do you think, should it be stopped or is it done in such miniscule amounts that it is negligible?

Hexavalent - 4-6-2012 at 10:39

We did this ages ago in our chemistry class. Personally, I think not - giving what is essentially medicine to everyone without their permission is illegal (at least here in the UK) and removes the freedom of choice for the individual.

Despite this, I am aware of the health benefits and potential negative impacts - for example, I understand that it certainly reduces tooth decay, but what about the unknown risk of being at a higher risk of bone cancer?

This decision whether to add F- to water or not IMHO has to be considered by the individual, and they should have the final choice about what they take into their own bodies of their own accord.

Morgan - 4-6-2012 at 10:40

Not sure how much is true, but some food for thought.
"Instant tea, one of the most popular drinks in the United States, may be a source of harmful levels of fluoride... The researchers found that some regular strength preparations contain as much as 6.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, well over the 4 ppm maximum allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency." - 'Potentially harmful fluoride levels found in some instant tea'', Washington University School of Medicine, January 25, 2005."
"Despite repeated warnings that humans, particularly children, are currently receiving too much fluoride from their diets (see section V), fluoride pesticides continue to be added to the food supply under extremely lax regulations from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."
"Currently, the main fluoride pesticide used in the US is cryolite (sodium aluminum fluoride). The EPA currently allows up to 7 ppm of fluoride on over 30 fruits and vegetables treated with cryolite. This 7 ppm fluoride tolerance applies to: apricots, beets, blackberries, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, citrus fruits, collards, cranberries, cucumbers, eggplants, grapes, kale, lettuce, melons, nectarines, peaches, peppers, plums, pumpkins, radishes, raspberries, squash, strawberries, tomatoes and turnip."
"A 2 ppm standard has also been established for potatoes, which are second to grapes for total cryolite usage."
"The EPA's standard of 7 ppm for fluoride residues is over 5 times greater than the standard set by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1933. In 1933, the USDA established the maximum level for fluoride residues on fruits and vegetables at 1.2 ppm, which was the same standard the USDA established for arsenic. While arsenic pesticides have since been phased out of use in the US, fluoride pesticides remain."
"In fact, the current tolerance levels for fluoride pesticides could become even higher - if the US EPA, under intense pressure from DOW Chemical, approves sulfuryl fluoride as a replacement fumigant for methyl bromide."
"If EPA approves sulfuryl fluoride (an indoor fumigant that has never before been used on food) as the replacement for methyl bromide, there will be a substantial increase in the fluoride contamination of the food supply."
"In a recent petition (February 15, 2002) to the EPA, DOW Chemical asked for extremely high fluoride tolerances on a wide number of common foods, including, 98 ppm for wheat germ, 40 ppm for wheat bran, 31 ppm for rice bran, 30 ppm for a variety of nuts, 28 ppm for corn meal, 26 ppm for corn flour, 25 ppm for millet grain, 25 ppm for wild rice grain, 25 ppm for sorghum grain, 25 ppm for wheat grain, and 17 ppm for oat grain!"
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-dangers/sources-of-flu...

One 400th of a pancake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXD_MV0-50Y&feature=relmf...
Continued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2xtNtMvJc&feature=relmf...


"In rare cases improper implementation of water fluoridation can result in overfluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Three such outbreaks were reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L; in the 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died.[59] In 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina in 90 minutes—an amount that was intended to be released in a 24-hour period.[60]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

Clinical Findings:
"Acute poisoning from inhalation of fluorine-containing gases or from ingestion of rodenticides or ascaricides containing fluoride is rare. Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1 mg/kg. Fluoride (75-90% absorbed by 90 min) lowers serum calcium and magnesium. Clinically, gastroenteritis and cardiac (ventricular tachycardia and ECG abnormalities) and nervous signs may be followed within a few hours by collapse and death."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...

Dogs and grapes.
http://dogtorj.com/appetizers/medical-conditions-f-k/grape-p...



[Edited on 4-6-2012 by Morgan]

Hexavalent - 4-6-2012 at 10:54

Just a collection of images used by protesters against water fluoridation . . .I love the clear bias in them and the references to 'Used by Nazis . . . '















Also (for some reason, these ones didn't like the [img][/img] code. . .

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Lv_FYcLXA6w/Te9smX6X-PI/AAAAAAAAJP...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZOwnzvDYQ40/TUGx_56qWnI/AAAAAAAABi...

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/8661722/homepage/name/609913?ty...

[Edited on 4-6-2012 by Hexavalent]

watson.fawkes - 4-6-2012 at 11:07

I see the Full Employment for Unethical Dentists faction is raising its snaggletoothed head again.

Morgan - 4-6-2012 at 18:27

Government Recommends Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water
http://www.care2.com/causes/government-recommends-lower-fluo...

"In March, 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report recommending that the EPA lower its maximum standard for fluoride in drinking water to below 4 milligrams. The report warned severe fluorosis could occur at 2 milligrams. Also, a majority of the report's authors said a lifetime of drinking water with fluoride at 4 milligrams or higher could raise the risk of broken bones."
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_b9ef926e-1afe-11e...

Harmful Fluoride Levels Found in Instant Iced Tea
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145423,00.html

[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]

Twospoons - 4-6-2012 at 19:11

I wonder how many smokers there are in the anti-fluoride brigade?
I have a mate who tells me about various 'health' things from time to time (not all bogus), and in the back of my mind I'm screaming " ARRGH! Forget the magic potions and take that damn cigar out of your mouth!"

Morgan - 5-6-2012 at 05:32

Kryocide® Advisory on Use of Cryolite to Control Insects on Grapes
http://www.fluoridealert.org/kryocide.htm

"California grape growers use cryolite to control two insects that can devastate vineyards. Researchers from California State University in Fresno conducted a 5 year study (1990-1994) on vineyards throughout the San Joaquin Valley. They found that "[m]ultiple applications of Cryolite during the growing season significantly increase fluoride in wines." Notably they found fluoride levels between 3 - 6 ppm in Zinfandel, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chenin Blanc, Thompson Seedless, Barbera, Muscat Candi, Ruby Cabernet; and levels between 6 - <9 ppm in French Colombard and Zinfandel. They noted "that fluoride levels in wine produced from grapes not treated with Cryolite can range from 0.1 to 1.6 ppm, depending upon location and variety (Ostrom)." At 6 ppm one glass of wine (175 ml) would have delivered as much fluoride as about a liter of optimally fluoridated water!"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride.htm

"Since it is common practice to use fluoride-containing insecticide in growing grapes, it is believed that contamination of these juices is occurring. Washing of grape skins produced appreciable quantities of fluoride. Given that increasing numbers of people are consuming beverages instead of water, fluoride supplementation should not be based solely upon the concentration of the drinking water, but should also consider the amount of different beverages consumed and their fluoride content."
http://www.fluoridealert.org/stannard-1991.aspx

I have a small dog weighing about 7 pounds. Looks like toxic effects could occur with as little as 4 mg according to the Merck Manual.
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1 mg/kg. Fluoride (75-90% absorbed by 90 min) lowers serum calcium and magnesium. Clinically, gastroenteritis and cardiac (ventricular tachycardia and ECG abnormalities) and nervous signs may be followed within a few hours by collapse and death."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...

I wonder if farmers ever use more pesticides than they are allowed or estimate incorrectly as they crop dust or othewise?
I see a lot of nice grapes in the commissary where I live, some from South America.
http://dogtorj.com/appetizers/medical-conditions-f-k/grape-p...

Just for the heck of it, you might want to read about the dirty dozen.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/dirty-d...


[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]

Adas - 5-6-2012 at 06:22

Fluorides are toxic and neurotoxic, I have read about it many times. I Don't like the idea of fluorides in tap water and toothpastes. In toothpastes, there is concentration of around 1450 ppm, which is a lot, IMO.

Sure, that most people don't experience any problems, but it doesn't mean it's harmless. Why add toxins to water/toothpaste?

I think people may have healthy teeth even without fluorides, as the hygiene increased in recent years.

weiming1998 - 5-6-2012 at 06:42

In my opinion, it totally depends on the area. In areas where fluoride levels are low, I believe water fluoridation should be implemented because, as you can find on a billion websites, it increases your teeth's resistance to acids, etc. In places where the water fluoride levels are already sufficiently enough for dental health (unlike what the fluoride conspiracy theorists states, fluorides actually do exist naturally in water) , no, fluoride should not be implemented because higher doses can cause weaker bones. In areas where fluoride levels are especially high, fluoride-removal techniques (ion exchange resins, reverse osmosis, etc) should be used to remove the excess fluoride. The amount of fluoride put in water should not be universal because it depends on the area so much.

But I totally disagree with the conspiracy theories about fluoride and mind control. There is totally no evidence apart from anti-fluoride websites dedicated to attacking water fluoridation and random speculations/conspiracy theories. That is not science. There is no direct evidence whatsoever that fluorides are used by Nazis to control Jews in concentration camps, nor is there evidence of fluoride affecting the brain (at least not now), or any other organ other than bones at low doses (yes, I know high doses causes calcium to precipitate out of blood, etc) Finally, the claim of NaF being rat poison is ridiculous to the extreme. Firstly, why don't you use something like KCN (LD50 about 5mg/kg), which is also very cheap, than something like NaF which has an LD50 of something like 80mg/kg? Secondly, those conspiracy theorists don't realize that NaF, or any other fluorides, are not 100% accumulative. It also does not poison you when they are in your bones, because it bonds with the bones to form insoluble compounds like fluroapatite, which isn't absorbed at all by your body. The vast majority of fluoride goes to your bones, unless taken in a very large dose over a short amount of time. In higher doses, weaker bones and dental fluorosis can occur, but that probably won't happen if fluoride levels are controlled properly.

Morgan - 5-6-2012 at 07:30

'According to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), "Fresh or unprocessed foods available in the U.S. have fluoride concentrations that generally range from 0.02 to 2.00 ppm. Marine fish that are consumed with bones and bone meal supplements have been shown to be a rich source of fluoride in human food…The bones of some land-based animals also contain high levels of fluoride (DHHS, p 10)."

"In our view, the current tolerance level of 7 ppm is high. The tolerances proposed in 1997 (Table 2) are exceedingly high and EPA has not made a final decision on them. What is extremely disturbing is that the proposed increases were not based on any new toxicological or health considerations but simply on the calculations by the cryolite pesticide producers of what residues were left after typical spraying operations! Instead of proposing different spraying strategies the EPA came back and proposed increasing the tolerance level. In other words the EPA is adjusting its toxicological analysis to fit industry's needs, not to protect the public health or the environment. Moroever, out of the 95 references cited in EPA's 155 page report for these tolerances, only 2 were published in the open literature. Of the two published reports, one was a 1975 paper on toxicity of chemicals to Honey Bees, and the second was the intensely controversial 1990 National Toxicology Program (NTP) report on fluoride's carcinogencity. The majority of the unpublished papers were submitted by the producers of cryolite pesticides (US EPA, 1996)."

"Another concern with organic gardening and farming is the use of bone meal, which is allowed for use in the National Organic Standards under EPA's List 4 Inerts. This meal is prepared mainly from the bones of farm animals. Fluoride concentrates in the bones of all mammals and we can expect concentrations to be in the 1000 ppm plus range."

"A recent analysis of the Canadian food basket indicates that a typical North American diet delivers about 1.8 mg of fluoride per day (Dabeka, 1995). This is nearly twice the amount of fluoride one would receive from drinking one liter of fluoridated water. Some of this fluoride we can do little about, but the one source we should not have to contend with is that introduced by organic farmers. When we pay extra money to avoid pesticides, we don't expect to get doses of an extremely toxic pesticide! Thus, even though these new National Organic Standards permit organic farmers to use bone meal and sodium fluoride, we urge them not to do so. We also urge them to avoid the use of powdered phosphate rock. We urge readers to make their voices heard on this issue. In the future, we will be looking for labels which say "organic" and "fluoride free".
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/flouride.cfm

Morgan - 5-6-2012 at 08:18

"Most published reports show 1 to 5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of black tea, but a new study shows that number could be as high as 9 milligrams."
"Whitford discovered that the fluoride concentration in black tea had long been underestimated when he began analyzing data from four patients with advanced skeletal fluorosis, a disease caused by excessive fluoride consumption and characterized by joint and bone pain and damage. While it is extremely rare in the United States, the common link between these four patients was their tea consumption -- each person drank 1 to 2 gallons of tea daily for the past 10 to 30 years."
"Most published studies about black tea traditionally have used a method of measuring fluoride that doesn't account for the amount that combines with aluminum to form insoluble aluminum fluoride, which is not detected by the fluoride electrode. Whitford compared that method with a diffusion method, which breaks the aluminum-fluoride bond so that all fluoride in the tea samples can be extracted and measured."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100714104059.ht...

"Tea plants accumulate fluoride in their leaves. In general, the oldest tea leaves contain the most fluoride (9). Most high quality teas are made from the bud or the first two to four leaves—the youngest leaves on the plant. Brick tea, a lower quality tea, is made from the oldest tea leaves and is often very high in fluoride. Symptoms of fluoride excess (i.e., dental and skeletal fluorosis) have been observed in Tibetan children and adults who consume large amounts of brick tea (10, 11)."
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/tea/

"Instant tea brands in the United States have recently come under scrutiny after a woman developed bone fluorosis, following her daily drinking regimen of 1-2 gallons of instant ice tea. Recent testing published in The American Journal of Medicine (Jan 2005) show that Fluoride levels of several instant tea drinks from American brands including Lipton and Arizona range from 1.0-6.5 ppm (WebMD, 2005)."
http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Fluoride+Content+in+T...



[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]

unionised - 5-6-2012 at 09:18

It's always fascinating to see all this stuff about fluorides.
But they don't actually add fluoride to the water. The add fluorosilicates.
Now the moral issues about mass medication are still valid, but it does rather suggest that these people simply don't know what they are talking about.

Also, there are places in the world where the natural levels of fluoride in water are high.
And we know what the effect of those high levels of fluoride are. The symptom that occurs at slightly elevated levels is mottled teeth. The next symptom id bone damage.
We know that you get those effects if the levels are high.
But those places don't have notable problems with cancer apathy lowered IQ or even Nazism so we know that those associations presented by the "anti fluoridation" groups are not actually supported ( or to be less polite: they are lies).

mr.crow - 5-6-2012 at 10:17

What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit

Berrilium - 5-6-2012 at 10:21

Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow  
What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit
Why so?

Hexavalent - 5-6-2012 at 10:26

I disagree mr.crow . . .there is only one thing in this thread that demands the title 'bullshit', and that is your post.

This thread is related to chemistry and affects the average Joe pretty much daily . . .there is a constant war between the addition of fluoride or not, and the effects of either side, both positive and negative. It involves science and has deep relations to the outside world, it is not just a small matter in a laboratory. Perhaps this should have been in Whimsy, but it offers the people - the chemists - of Sciencemadness an opportunity to express their opinions on it based on what they understand and appreciate of it. As my grandmother always used to say, 'If you've got nothing nice to say, then don't say it at all'.

mr.crow - 5-6-2012 at 10:28

Quote: Originally posted by Berrilium  
Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow  
What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit
Why so?


There are tons of regurgitated links someone saved up. Propaganda pictures and conspiracy theories. Vague political ideas about personal choice. No one even quoted Dr Strangelove, how disappointing.

I think your question is still valid, however.

Hexavalent - 5-6-2012 at 10:33

[rquote]There are tons of regurgitated links someone saved up. Propaganda pictures and conspiracy theories. Vague political ideas about personal choice.[/rquote]

I felt as though we were just discussing the opinions of different people and how they are conveyed through these media, e.g. the pictures and political ideas. We are analysing what we know to be true against what may be true against what the public are TOLD is true, discussing what different things actually mean before we all come to our own decision and relating our scientific knowledge and understanding to it. Or enhanced knowledge gives us an advantage in this type of situation; we can recognise the facts more easily and distinguish bias; but, as I said, akin to yourself, ultimately it is a personal decision about what we take into our bodies.

[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Hexavalent]

mr.crow - 5-6-2012 at 10:43

Ouch, I have been thoroughly rebuked. I still don't consider it a very scientific answer to fluoridation but that's just an opinion

Berrilium - 5-6-2012 at 10:45

My idea for posting this topic was that it could generate and accumulate a wide variety of scientifically valid opinions and ideas, not just merely the opinions of the ignorant.

Morgan - 5-6-2012 at 11:50

It's interesting that 5mg/kg of NaF is lethal to dogs according to the Merck Vet Manual, a fairly respectable source, as little as 20mg could be lethal to my little dog, and yet a similar fluoride we drink in our water we ingest about 2mg per day if you include food sources such as animal products and the plants that get treated with fluorides. Can it really be good for babies, small children, and pets?

Fipronil is another fluoro-pesticide used on potatoes and many other crops in 70 countries, as well as on dogs to treat fleas. My sister's dog became very sick after applying a dose to her dog's neck.
"Researchers fed dogs 0.2 mg/kg/day fipronil (length unknown) and observed no adverse effects. In the same study, researchers
observed clinical signs of neurotoxicity at 2.0 mg/kg/day.2"

"Fipronil-sulfone, the primary biological metabolite of fipronil, is reported to be twenty times more active at mammalian
chloride channels than at insect chloride channels.10 Fipronil-sulfone is reportedly six times more potent in blocking vertebrate
GABA-gated chloride channels than fipronil, but demonstrates similar toxicity to the parent compound in mammals.8"

"Fipronil-desulfinyl, the primary environmental metabolite (photoproduct)of fipronil, is 9-10 times more active at the mammalian chloride channel than the parent compound, reducing the selectivity between insects and humans when exposed to this
metabolite.8,11"
And look at all the other creatures it kills. This source from a college I attended. So let's just load up on all these "safe" pesticides. Maybe some are synergistic. You can have it injected under your house for termite control too. I declined to renue my termite policy last week.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/fiptech.pdf

"In 2009, China banned fipronil products, citing toxicity to bees, insect resistance in pests such as the rice stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) and whitebacked planthopper (Sogatella furcifera), and the replacement use of DuPont’s chlorantraniliprole. Exceptions were made for applications in hygiene, seed-coating agents and exports — which could only be produced by manufacturers that make fipronil technical. All other existing registration and production certificates for pesticide formulation containing fipronil were nullified."
http://www.farmchemicalsinternational.com/cropprotection/pro...

Colony collapse disorder
"Fipronil is one of the main chemical causes blamed for the spread of colony collapse disorder among bees. It has been found by the Minutes-Association for Technical Coordination Fund in France that even at very low nonlethal doses for bees, the pesticide still impairs their ability to locate their hive, resulting in large numbers of forager bees lost with every pollen-finding expedition.[13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fipronil

http://agproducts.basf.us/products/regent-insecticide.html

My little dog.JPG - 104kB


[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 5-6-2012 at 12:35

New York Times article
"This week's twin fluoride restrictions reflect "a growing consensus that Americans are exposed to too much fluoride," EWG senior vice president for research, Jane Houlihan, said today. "It raises the concern that, for many decades now, the public has been overexposed."

"The gradual EPA removal of sulfuryl fluoride allowances will be subject to public comment before taking effect and include a three-year head start for significantly affected industries such as the cocoa and walnuts sectors."

"Estimating that the pesticide is applied to 100 percent of cocoa crops, EPA warned in its proposed phaseout that "cocoa imports (which in 2009 were valued at approximately $1.2 billion) would be lost due to either destruction or refusal of shipments by warehouse operators" unless businesses can develop a viable alternative to sulfuryl fluoride for cocoa fumigation."
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/11/11greenwire-epa-prop...

Types of Fluoride
http://fluoridedetective.com/types-of-fluoride/

[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 5-6-2012 at 13:02

The three additives are:
"Fluorosilicic acid: a water-based solution used by most water fluoridation programs in the United States. Fluorosilicic acid is also referred to as hydrofluorosilicate, FSA, or HFS.
Sodium fluorosilicate: a dry additive, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.
Sodium fluoride: a dry additive, typically used in small water systems, dissolved into a solution before being added to water."

"The studies that examined potential health effects from sodium fluoride additives in drinking water should also apply to FSA because of the same disassociation results."
"WA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride."

"FSA can be partially neutralized by either table salt (sodium chloride) or caustic soda to get sodium fluorosilicate. If enough caustic soda is added to neutralize the fluorosilicate completely, it results in sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride is also produced by mixing caustic soda with hydrogen fluoride, although approximately 90% of the sodium fluoride used in the United States comes from FSA."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfad...

Morgan - 5-6-2012 at 13:59

"The EPA classifies it in the most acutely toxic category of pesticides: a restricted use pesticide (1) which means that food products and packaging must be removed from warehouses before they can be fumigated. No food contact allowed. Makes sense, right?"

"Well all this changed in 2004. Since 2004 sulfuryl fluoride has become widely used ON foods. (I bet Dow Chemical lobbyists earned a fat bonus on this.)"

"Now EPA allows these fumigations to create fluoride residues of up to 70 ppm fluoride “in or on” all processed foods (except specified foods) and 130 ppm “in or on” wheat!"

"All cocoa beans are fumigated, not just a few times yearly like some food products (9). All cocoa beans – yes, the same ones that all of our domestic chocolate items are made of. And with cocoa beans, it’s not just one fumigation: They get zapped once in the country of origin and once in the U.S.A."

"How much fluoride ends up in cocoa beans?"
"I don’t know. I can’t find that information – but until I do, I’m cutting back on my dark chocolate intake – a lot."

http://fluoridedetective.com/fluoride-facts/sulfuryl-fluorid...

[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]

Mailinmypocket - 5-6-2012 at 15:08

Quote: Originally posted by Hexavalent  
I disagree mr.crow . . .there is only one thing in this thread that demands the title 'bullshit', and that is your post.

This thread is related to chemistry and affects the average Joe pretty much daily . . .there is a constant war between the addition of fluoride or not, and the effects of either side, both positive and negative. It involves science and has deep relations to the outside world, it is not just a small matter in a laboratory. Perhaps this should have been in Whimsy, but it offers the people - the chemists - of Sciencemadness an opportunity to express their opinions on it based on what they understand and appreciate of it. As my grandmother always used to say, 'If you've got nothing nice to say, then don't say it at all'.


That's funny, my grandmother constantly told me the same thing! Although to be honest sometimes one should speak their mind without sugar coating it to please everyone!

Thus thread started out interesting but now it seems to just be a collage of articles and no actual scientific discussion

Morgan - 5-6-2012 at 15:17

CDC
Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Fatalities Resulting From Sulfuryl Fluoride Exposure After Home Fumigation -- Virginia
http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00051658.htm

watson.fawkes - 6-6-2012 at 05:24

Quote: Originally posted by Hexavalent  
We are analysing [...]
Please don't delude yourself. There's no analysis going on here. There barely any discussion, even.

Morgan - 6-6-2012 at 14:16

The ADA warns not to mix tap water with baby formula the first 12 months and other tidbits. Anyone want to talk about that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SYgUi_f5yY#t=1m52s
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/1...

[Edited on 6-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 6-6-2012 at 15:37

Fluoride Risks for Kidney Patients (Wide Screen Version) Anybody think this doesn't make sense just to be on the safe side?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utB94Jee0Os

Morgan - 6-6-2012 at 18:58

Some Dog Foods May Deliver Toxic Doses of Fluoride
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/dog-f...
Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...
"In Bone Meal (which can contain 1000 ppm - or more- fluoride), also included in US EPA List 4 Inerts ("Inerts generally regarded as safe, i.e., corn cobs and cookie crumbs," according to EPA)."
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride.htm
Anybody want to discuss this?


[Edited on 7-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 7-6-2012 at 11:08

An EPA mistake on 4 parts per million for those who like history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5oOTkBKXys#t=8m27s

watson.fawkes - 7-6-2012 at 11:30

Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
The ADA warns[...]
No they don't. Please read what the ADA says on the matter. Fluoride and Infant Formula: Frequently Asked Questions. They do not warn to avoid it unilaterally. They hardly say anything against it at all, much less a warning. Here's what they actually say, from that page:
Quote:

Yes, it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula. If your baby is primarily fed infant formula, using fluoridated water might increase the chance for mild enamel fluorosis, but enamel fluorosis does not affect the health of your child or the health of your child’s teeth. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to talk to their dentists about what’s best for their child.
When you rely on secondary sources that selectively misquote science, please expect to be ignored.

Morgan - 7-6-2012 at 11:47

Brisbane Given Fluoride Overdose
"The water contained 30 to 31mg/L of fluoride instead of the maximum allowable 1.5mg/L."
"The Government had received no complaints yesterday but The Courier-Mail has received several reports of symptoms similar to gastroenteritis."
"Warner mother-of-two Caroline Rossiter said her family, including the dog and cat, had been ill for two weeks."
http://www.fluorideaustralia.org/articleView.asp?Article=2

Morgan - 7-6-2012 at 11:53

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes  
Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
The ADA warns[...]
No they don't. Please read what the ADA says on the matter. Fluoride and Infant Formula: Frequently Asked Questions. They do not warn to avoid it unilaterally. They hardly say anything against it at all, much less a warning. Here's what they actually say, from that page:
Quote:

Yes, it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula. If your baby is primarily fed infant formula, using fluoridated water might increase the chance for mild enamel fluorosis, but enamel fluorosis does not affect the health of your child or the health of your child’s teeth. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to talk to their dentists about what’s best for their child.
When you rely on secondary sources that selectively misquote science, please expect to be ignored.


Some "suggestions" are more subtle than others. The EPA said it was perfectly safe before and I guess they changed there mind on the upper limit of 4 ppm. Now they offer a suggestion/warning for babies who just might be very sensitive to fluorides. I'm not a conspiracy theoriest, but I do think there are a lot of pesticides we don't need in our water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HltsxLEB0qo#t=32s


[Edited on 7-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 7-6-2012 at 12:51

"Infants consume little other than breast milk or formula during the first 4 to 6 months of life, and continue to have a high intake of liquids during the entire first year. Therefore, proportional to body weight, fluoride intake may be higher for younger or smaller children than for older children, adolescents, or adults."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm

Morgan - 7-6-2012 at 12:55

"Direct cellular poison"

"Fluorides are widely distributed in the environment and originate naturally from rocks and soil or from industrial processes. Water supplies for human consumption have been adjusted to contain 1 ppm to prevent dental caries. Fluorine at 1-2 mg/kg in animal rations is considered adequate. The maximal tolerable level varies by species, eg, 40-50 ppm for cattle and horses, and 200 mg/kg for chickens."

"There is a general correlation between solubility of a fluoride and its toxicity. Of the common fluorides, sodium fluoride is the most toxic, and calcium fluoride the least toxic. The fluorides of rock phosphates and most cryolites are of intermediate toxicity. Soluble fluorides originating from industrial fumes or dusts are more toxic than fluoride in rock phosphate."

"Fluoride binds to Ca2+, Mg2+, and Mn2+, acting as a direct cellular poison (including bacterial cells, hence its use in dental hygiene). At high levels most fluorides are corrosive to tissue. In bone, fluoride binds calcium and replaces the hydroxyl groups in the mineral part of bone, which is mostly hydroxyapatite. In teeth developed during fluoride ingestion, the enamel is less soluble (protective) and more dense (brittle, if excessive). In addition, faulty mineralization of teeth and bones occurs when excessive fluoride interferes with intracellular calcium metabolism and damages ameloblasts and odontoblasts."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...

[Edited on 7-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 7-6-2012 at 14:37

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
SODIUM SILICOFLUORIDE

RECOMMENDED USE:
1. Fluoridation of drinking water.
2. Laundry sours.
3. Opalescent glass.
4. Vitreous enamel frits.
5. Metallurgy of aluminium and verblium.
6. Insecticides and rodenticides.
7. Leather and wood preservatives.

CHRONIC TOXICITY:
"Continuous or intermittent exposure to inorganic fluorides can lead to appreciable accumulation of fluoride in bone, and, to development of osteosclerosis and other bone changes."
http://www.magitsurplus.com/PDF%20Files/Na2SiF6-MSDS.pdf

FLUOROSILICIC ACID
http://www.fluoridefreewater.ie/msds_fluorosilicic_acid.pdf

"FSA can be partially neutralized by either table salt (sodium chloride) or caustic soda to get sodium fluorosilicate. If enough caustic soda is added to neutralize the fluorosilicate completely, it results in sodium fluoride."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfad...

mnick12 - 7-6-2012 at 14:59

Really five posts in a row? Why not just include all this "information" in a single post and prevent the eye sore for the rest of us.

Morgan - 7-6-2012 at 15:13

Sierra Club Conservation Policies Policy on Fluoride in Drinking Water

"Therefore, the Sierra Club believes that communities should have the option to reject mandatory fluoridation of their water supplies."
"To protect sensitive populations, and because safer strategies and methods for preventing tooth decay are now available, we recommend that these safer alternatives be made available and promoted. If fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, sodium fluoride rather than flourosilicate compounds should be used because the latter has a greater risk of being contaminated with such heavy metals as lead and arsenic."
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/water_fluorida...

Morgan - 8-6-2012 at 13:26

I was reading hexafluorosilicic acid tends to combine with substances in the pipes as it gets to your house, more likely to pick up contaminants. Seems like a fairly reactive chemical. ha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZHje9u2PXE#t=14s

Safety
Hexafluorosilicic acid releases hydrogen fluoride when evaporated, so it has similar risks. It is corrosive and may cause fluoride poisoning; inhalation of the vapors may cause lung edema. Like hydrogen fluoride, it attacks glass and stoneware.[7] LD50 value of hexafluorosilicic acid is 70 mg/kg (example LD50 for caffeine is 127 mg/kg).[8][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

Toxicity of the Products of Biodegradation: The products of degradation are more toxic.
Special Remarks on the Products of Biodegradation: Not available.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924083

The Merck Vet Manual ...
Looks like a tube of toothpaste has enough fluoride to potentially kill my less than 4 kilogram dog over 50 times.
"A 100-g tube of fluoride toothpaste may contain 75-500 mg of sodium fluoride, depending on the brand."
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1 mg/kg."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...

[Edited on 8-6-2012 by Morgan]

Endimion17 - 8-6-2012 at 14:02

There are some real issues with water fluoridation, but most of the efforts against it that I've seen are conjoined with some really funny crackpot bullshit.

I don't really understand why is water in USA being fluoridated. Don't they use fluoride toothpaste there? European countries use early dental fluoride profilaxis in a form of gel being applied to teeth for several minutes, sodium fluoride pills and after people grow past their baby teeth, they use fluoride toothpastes. It seems enough.
Fluoride anion is a common ingredient in tap water, which is actually mineral water. There are some areas with lower concentrations, and there are some with high concentrations (dental fluorosis is a normal condition there).
I can't really believe the whole USA is depleted of F<sup>-</sup> so that it has to be put in everyone's water. Can someone explain this to me?

The only profilaxis regarding to halogens, used in Europe, is chlorination of water to prevent infections and iodization of salt to prevent goiter. I don't really see the neccessity for water fluoridation if we brush our teeth every day.

Morgan - 8-6-2012 at 15:09

There are foods in the US like wines with 2mg per liter of fluoride and white grapes especially are high in fluoride from the "pesticide/fluoride" they use. Bread is also high in fluoride I read. And for poor dogs they have our fluoridated water and bone meal added to their foods with very high levels of fluoride in it from cattle bones. Another article said to avoid bone meal for dogs because of that. Beer and Cokes if using fluoridated water also add up. What if someone phsically active drinks a lot of water too. Maybe they could get up to 8mg per day if eating all the wrong things.
This is a clip from a news program. I like the part about the simple concept of putting on your teeth and that there is no need to ingest it.
Doctor Exposes Fluoride as Poison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=ZvAAaAA...

Endimion17 - 8-6-2012 at 15:18

The chance you'll get sick from it is miniscule. As I've said, there are areas of land where waterbed contains lots of soluble fluorides, way more than potable water for most of Americans. People are fine, except there are more cases of dental fluorosis.

It's not "poisoning the people", that is a too harsh conclusion.
I just don't see the neccessity. What's wrong with chlorine? Chlorine is a staple in the whole world. It fucks up the bacteria just fine. It's cheaper. OK, some chloramines are produced, but the benefit is much greater. Non chlorinated water would cause epidemics of various diseases, leading to increased antibiotic battle, and that can't go forever.

Morgan - 8-6-2012 at 15:38

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  
There are some real issues with water fluoridation, but most of the efforts against it that I've seen are conjoined with some really funny crackpot bullshit.

I agree with that statement 100%. There are some conspiracy loons out there. But I think it's sad that the people who care about the safety of drinking water can't seem to get the establishment to listen. And yet you can bet the phosphate industry has a lot of people interested in keeping fluorides in the water. They get to sell a hazardous waste from their chimneys instead of paying to have it sequestered somewhere. I read it's too expensive to extract the fluoride from the hexafluorosilicic acid and companies would rather import raw minerals instead to get fluoride.
http://imgur.com/JmDJ5


[Edited on 8-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 8-6-2012 at 15:43

I hadn't thought about it but there's this other source of fluorides, probably not good for your brain. Forgive me for posting a conspiracy theory, but it has something true I think and that is big pharm sure sells a lot of potentially harmful drugs that later turn out to be taken off the market.
"This article may be hard for some to swallow (pun intended) however, those who have studied the subject will find it well worth reading, Fluoride compounds are a the darling of the drug industry. Hence one can find many drugs rife with fluorides. These include SSRI's (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) all the way to some cholesterol drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa to Lipitor. It appears that the judicial use of this toxin can have many effects all the way from Stupidity...docility to even aggression..."
http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/anxiety-disorders-discussio...

unionised - 8-6-2012 at 15:52

Quote: Originally posted by Berrilium  
Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow  
What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit
Why so?


Among the reasons are the fact that they don't add fluoride to water supplies and that the assertion that fluoride causes the asserted problems is demonstrably false .

BTW, if that looks familiar, it's because I pointed it out earlier.

Morgan - 8-6-2012 at 15:59

Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Berrilium  
Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow  
What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit
Why so?


Among the reasons are the fact that they don't add fluoride to water supplies and that the assertion that fluoride causes the asserted problems is demonstrably false .

BTW, if that looks familiar, it's because I pointed it out earlier.


I see you live in the UK.

Endimion17 - 8-6-2012 at 16:27

Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
I hadn't thought about it but there's this other source of fluorides, probably not good for your brain. Forgive me for posting a conspiracy theory, but it has something true I think and that is big pharm sure sells a lot of potentially harmful drugs that later turn out to be taken off the market.
"This article may be hard for some to swallow (pun intended) however, those who have studied the subject will find it well worth reading, Fluoride compounds are a the darling of the drug industry. Hence one can find many drugs rife with fluorides. These include SSRI's (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) all the way to some cholesterol drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa to Lipitor. It appears that the judicial use of this toxin can have many effects all the way from Stupidity...docility to even aggression..."
http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/anxiety-disorders-discussio...


Then you don't know how pharmaceutics work. You seem to imply that these drugs are just some concoctions few people make up in a lab and then they're put out on the market as a one giant live trial test that makes tons of money for repeating the whole process with another concoction. You couldn't be more wrong.
Yeah, there are issues with some drugs, there are bad cases, but to condemn it? Ridiculous.

BTW it's fluorine compounds, not fluoride compounds. The very fact that you can't differentiate those two things doesn't help you at all. Being a member of SM implies that you know the difference.

Fluorine compounds are used because fluorine is similar to chlorine, but not identical. Drugs often take advantage od similar electronic configuration of atoms. After all, that's why arsenic is very poisonous though similar to phosphorus.

I'll strip the fancy words - you actually said something like: "The conspirators put fluoride in out water and(!!!!11!11!) use the same thing to make money by selling drugs that make us stupid just like their water".

Do you know how stupid that is? It not only sounds stupid, it is stupid.

America is lethargic not because of the water, but because of other, sociological issues. You're being entertained for several decades. That's the problem.

As I've said, the rest of the world uses fluorides and fluorine compounds, too, and there are even areas with much higher fluoride content in drinking water.

Morgan - 8-6-2012 at 17:19

Don't get sick.
"The association of the inhaled anesthetic isoflurane with Alzheimer's-disease-like changes in mammalian brains may by caused by the drug's effects on mitochondria, the structures in which most cellular energy is produced."
http://www.massgeneral.org/about/pressrelease.aspx?id=1443
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoflurane

Endimion17 - 8-6-2012 at 17:33

First things first, learn how to write replies and posts. You can't mutilate threads like this.

Morgan - 8-6-2012 at 18:20

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  
Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
I hadn't thought about it but there's this other source of fluorides, probably not good for your brain. Forgive me for posting a conspiracy theory, but it has something true I think and that is big pharm sure sells a lot of potentially harmful drugs that later turn out to be taken off the market.
"This article may be hard for some to swallow (pun intended) however, those who have studied the subject will find it well worth reading, Fluoride compounds are a the darling of the drug industry. Hence one can find many drugs rife with fluorides. These include SSRI's (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) all the way to some cholesterol drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa to Lipitor. It appears that the judicial use of this toxin can have many effects all the way from Stupidity...docility to even aggression..."
http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/anxiety-disorders-discussio...


Then you don't know how pharmaceutics work. You seem to imply that these drugs are just some concoctions few people make up in a lab and then they're put out on the market as a one giant live trial test that makes tons of money for repeating the whole process with another concoction. You couldn't be more wrong.
Yeah, there are issues with some drugs, there are bad cases, but to condemn it? Ridiculous.

BTW it's fluorine compounds, not fluoride compounds. The very fact that you can't differentiate those two things doesn't help you at all. Being a member of SM implies that you know the difference.

Fluorine compounds are used because fluorine is similar to chlorine, but not identical. Drugs often take advantage od similar electronic configuration of atoms. After all, that's why arsenic is very poisonous though similar to phosphorus.

I'll strip the fancy words - you actually said something like: "The conspirators put fluoride in out water and(!!!!11!11!) use the same thing to make money by selling drugs that make us stupid just like their water".

Do you know how stupid that is? It not only sounds stupid, it is stupid.

America is lethargic not because of the water, but because of other, sociological issues. You're being entertained for several decades. That's the problem.

As I've said, the rest of the world uses fluorides and fluorine compounds, too, and there are even areas with much higher fluoride content in drinking water.


I don't think you understood my post. I don't agree that people are putting fluorides in water to make us dumb or that drug companies are doing the same thing. I posted "their" view and mentioned a lot of drugs turn out to have harmful effects later down the road. You don't have to look very far to see that. And with that thought, it might be that fluorides in water might be causing some harm.

"While it is unlikely that it will be disputed that fluorides are toxic - let us be reminded that they are Schedule 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972, the matter in dispute is the level of toxicity attributable to given amounts; in today's context the degree of damage caused by given concentrations in the water supply. While admitting its toxicity, proponents rely on the fact that it is diluted and therefore, it is claimed, unlikely to have deleterious effects."

The body can only eliminate half

"Moreover, fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in baby formula made with fluoridated water. The extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable. Since there are so many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm as is suggested."
Here's some other points of view.

The Effects Of Fluoride On
The Thyroid Gland
By Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS
Medical Advisor to Thyroid UK
9-9-4
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM

[Edited on 9-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 8-6-2012 at 18:36

Another excerpt.

"What concerns me so deeply is that in concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels."

1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed.

2. The stimulation of certain G proteins from the toxic effect of fluoride (whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of the body), has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.

3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.

4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured.
These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other environmental toxins and pollutions together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM

Panache - 9-6-2012 at 04:47

i read very little of this thread, and none of the links, however in this company i am expert to comment......on anything.
Public health is your bone of contention here, try not having enough to eat and see if you have time to whine ah i meant discuss ah analysis, no it was whining (watson fawkes was correct in his ever humorous derisive commentary) about fluoride in water.
One of the chemicals in my collection is a nice bottle of sodium fluorosilicate, the chemical used here to achieve the health outcomes associated with fluoridation of water. notably the merck bottle has a poison logo on it carried by other poisons like.... dimethyl mercury.
i thinks this is saying something that the health experts have missed.

unionised - 9-6-2012 at 05:04

Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Berrilium  
Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow  
What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit
Why so?


Among the reasons are the fact that they don't add fluoride to water supplies and that the assertion that fluoride causes the asserted problems is demonstrably false .

BTW, if that looks familiar, it's because I pointed it out earlier.


I see you live in the UK.


It's not as if my presence in the UK is a secret: why mention it?

Endimion17 - 9-6-2012 at 05:55

Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
I don't think you understood my post. I don't agree that people are putting fluorides in water to make us dumb or that drug companies are doing the same thing. I posted "their" view and mentioned a lot of drugs turn out to have harmful effects later down the road. You don't have to look very far to see that. And with that thought, it might be that fluorides in water might be causing some harm.


You should note that when posting stuff, especially after a thread flood.
I'm not saying water fluoridation is benign, though I don't see the direct health issue. This is more of an ethical issue. I don't see the need for it, because other countries work with chlorine and it's ok.
Quote:
"Moreover, fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in baby formula made with fluoridated water. The extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable. Since there are so many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm as is suggested."


The benefits of early dental profilaxis seems to be a lot greater. Kids' teeth rot quite faster. Imagine if early gel/pill fluoridization and toothpaste was absent. You know what would happen? You'd get a nation of redneck jaws in quarter of a century, i.e. the stuff we had before profilaxis. Bad teeth lead to problems with internal organs. More cardiac sicknesses, for example. Imagine adding them to the existing cardiovascular problems modern society has today, because everyone just stuffs their mouth with excessive amounts of food. It would be interesting to see American disgusting healthcare system trying to cope with that.

To sum it all up, topical teeth fluoridization and occasionally early fluoride pill profilaxis is a modern staple.
Water fluoridization is not neccessary.
Quote:
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM


Linking a webpage notoriously known for its piles of rubbish doesn't help you trying to prove your point. I'd stick to PubMed, just to avoid appearing like a nutter.
Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
Another excerpt.

"What concerns me so deeply is that in concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels."

1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed.

2. The stimulation of certain G proteins from the toxic effect of fluoride (whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of the body), has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.

3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.

4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured.
These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other environmental toxins and pollutions together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM


Concentration where? In the drinking water? In the thyroid cellular fluid? Bones?
Normal water fluoride levels in my country are around 0.1 ppm, but there are areas with elevated concentrations. 1 ppm is ten times our usual concentration, and that might have adverse effects, I agree.

Morgan - 9-6-2012 at 07:18

Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Berrilium  
Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow  
What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit
Why so?


Among the reasons are the fact that they don't add fluoride to water supplies and that the assertion that fluoride causes the asserted problems is demonstrably false .

BTW, if that looks familiar, it's because I pointed it out earlier.


I see you live in the UK.


It's not as if my presence in the UK is a secret: why mention it?


Maybe where you live they don't put fluoride in the water but many places in the US do.

watson.fawkes - 9-6-2012 at 08:24

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  
I can't really believe the whole USA is depleted of F<sup>-</sup> so that it has to be put in everyone's water. Can someone explain this to me?
That is indeed true. Not a lot of fluoride in ordinary water supplies in the USA. The water supply tends to be rainwater-catch reservoirs, rather than underground aquifers. There's not much opportunity to pick up minerals in many places.

In addition, the USA has no national health care, so office-based fluoride gel treatments are not standard. Nor is there a regulatory requirement that all toothpastes be fluoridated, and there are plenty of non-fluoridated ones on the market. Finally, there's no particular public education on the need to take personal action for fluoridation of one's own or one's children's teeth.

All this means that in areas of the USA that don't use fluoridated municipal water, caries rates go up by 2x, 3x, 4x sorts of numbers. These effects differentially hit the poor and less-educated, as well.

Morgan - 9-6-2012 at 09:14

The last thing I want is to seem like is a nutter. I've had to use sources that were less than perfect but on the other hand what the government tells you isn't always 100% correct either.
Let's put some basics up that we might agree on.

Fluoride was reduced because they said we were gettting enough/too much from foods, toothpastes, etc. This after they had allowable limits of 4mg per liter. Recall the Merck Vet Manual says 5mg of NaF per kilo is lethal to dogs. Does anybody know if dogs are more sensitive to fluorides? Or certain breeds?
Fluorides accumulate in the body.
The Merck Manual states fluoride works by being a direct cellular poison.
No one can say how much fluoride someone is getting because various foods are high in fluoride and some people drink extra water from the norm. Wine can have 2mg per liter - fluoride is used as a pesticide on grapes and other crops.
People on dialysis might have a hard time ridding fluoride from their diet.
Children might proportionately get more fluoride.
Fluoride is a Schedule 2 poison.
Your body stores a fair portion of it every day.
The main fluoride used in the US probably collects a lot of gunk with it from pipes on the way to your house, recall the spill that ate through the road and hazmat people came out to clean it up. The Sierra Club said NaF would be better because of arsenic and lead the former is said to collect, however small.

These thyroid tidbits are concerning whether proven or not because only small amounts of iodine/thyroid hormones have dramatic affects. As people get older they have much more fluoride in their body.
"There is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits on fluoride dental health are more imagined than real. My main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this subject, freely available and in the public domain."
"The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed."
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM

"While researching influences on the thyroid gland, we were astounded by the large number of fluoride citations. We were confronted with long lists of articles, from scientists around the world, reporting in medical journals about the harmful effects of fluoride."
"We then did a review of the history of thyroid treatment, which showed that fluoride had previously been used by the medical profession to deliberately slow down overactive thyroid glands. It is no longer used for that purpose, only because now there are stronger anti-thyroid drugs [like Tapazole and PTU]."

"For instance, we came across a 1958 study by Galletti and Joyet, published in the prestigious Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. The paper was titled, “Effect of Fluorine on Thyroidal Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism.” These scientists showed that fluoride in the range of 2-5 mg. per day (what people now ingest in a fluoridated area) was enough to slow down thyroid function."
http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridec...

Aren't these things enough to raise concerns? I think it's sad.

[Edited on 9-6-2012 by Morgan]

unionised - 9-6-2012 at 12:20

Meanwhile back in reality (and even in the US) they add fluorosilicate to the water supply rather than fluoride.

Morgan - 9-6-2012 at 15:09

Aside from the lead connection, concerns are raised as to whether silicofluorides might have different effects on the body than sodium fluorides, and silicofluorides have not been rigorously tested for safety.[25]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

"Therefore, the Sierra Club believes that communities should have the option to reject mandatory fluoridation of their water supplies."
"To protect sensitive populations, and because safer strategies and methods for preventing tooth decay are now available, we recommend that these safer alternatives be made available and promoted. If fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, sodium fluoride rather than flourosilicate compounds should be used because the latter has a greater risk of being contaminated with such heavy metals as lead and arsenic."
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/water_fluorida...

Recall there are 3 fluorides used in the US.

"Community water systems in the United States use one of three additives for water fluoridation. Decisions on which additive to use are based on cost of product, product-handling requirements, space availability, and equipment."

The three additives are:
Fluorosilicic acid: a water-based solution used by most water fluoridation programs in the United States. Fluorosilicic acid is also referred to as hydrofluorosilicate, FSA, or HFS.
Sodium fluorosilicate: a dry additive, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.
Sodium fluoride: a dry additive, typically used in small water systems, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfad...

"Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.[12] About 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood, where it distributes throughout the body. In infants 80–90% of absorbed fluoride is retained, with the rest excreted, mostly via urine; in adults about 60% is retained. About 99% of retained fluoride is stored in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich areas, where excess quantities can cause fluorosis.[48] Drinking water is typically the largest source of fluoride.[12] In many industrialized countries swallowed toothpaste is the main source of fluoride exposure in unfluoridated communities.[49] Other sources include dental products other than toothpaste; air pollution from fluoride-containing coal or from phosphate fertilizers; trona, used to tenderize meat in Tanzania; and tea leaves, particularly the tea bricks favored in parts of China. High fluoride levels have been found in other foods, including barley, cassava, corn, rice, taro, yams, and fish protein concentrate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

[Edited on 9-6-2012 by Morgan]

AJKOER - 9-6-2012 at 17:55

Look the chemical industry wants to be a growth industry. Fluoride makes an excellent rat poison, but there aren't enough of rats (at least in USA, but perhaps I wrong on this) to make this happen. Lowing the toxic levels of fungicides helps a little even if it does poison the fruit and we can't export it (we have this problem also with our diary products where guidelines has been greatly raised by the EPA at the request of Industry also).

Now China (and even Canada for dairy) is not accepting our bogus guidelines. Has the world gone mad for not promoting Industry profits over concerns of the health of its people and the well being of the planet based on some country's unbiased science? Thank god for good old crony capitalism in the USA where your lobbyists will get you what you can afford to buy!

I also recall reading that the reputed benefits of fluoride in drinking water with respect to tooth decay may be completely unfounded. But if the USA can make money by selling rat poison to add to drinking water, that's a good thing, isn't it?


[Edited on 10-6-2012 by AJKOER]

Morgan - 9-6-2012 at 19:13

Tidbits from both sides.

Question 3.
Is there a difference in the effectiveness between naturally occurring fluoridated water at optimal fluoride levels and water that has fluoride added to reach the optimal level?

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Long Answer
"Fluoride is present in water as "ions" or electrically charged atoms.27 These ions are the same whether acquired by water as it seeps through rocks and sand or added to the water supply under carefully controlled conditions. When fluoride is added under controlled conditions to fluoride-deficient water, the dental benefits are the same as those obtained from naturally fluoridated water. Fluoridation is merely a supplementation of the naturally occurring fluoride present in all drinking water sources."
"Some individuals mistakenly use the term "artificial fluoridation" to imply that the process of water fluoridation is unnatural and that it delivers a foreign substance into a water supply when, in fact, all water sources contain some fluoride. Community water fluoridation is a natural way to improve oral health.28"

Opposition's Response

"The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts put into the water supply, sodium fluoride or silicofluorides, are industrial products never found in natural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html

"Sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate are fluoride-containing compounds approved by the FDA for anti-cavity toothpaste. Each is synthesized from hydrofluoric acid, which is derived from the mineral fluorite (calcium fluoride) through a chemical reaction with sulfuric acid."
http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/68431.aspx

"As of the late 1990s, five billion kilograms were mined annually."
"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is analogous to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

S.C. Wack - 9-6-2012 at 19:37

Uh, no one drinks water any more, don't you know.
What cabal is responsible for pushing totally hidden from view solanine and acrylamide on the populace? Is the real purpose of fluoridation to brainwash you into accepting these? Are there flies in your eyes?

Got my only cavity at 35 or so...the tooth had a defect on eruption that was noted long before, but in 1980 a dentist told me it would never develop into a cavity. OMFG THE DENTISTS ARE LYING TOO

unionised - 10-6-2012 at 02:20

Morgan needs to learn some chemistry.
For example, the fluoride ion doesn't know or care if it was introduced as the sodium or calcium salt so this bit ". Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, " is meaningless, and so are the conclusions drawn from it.

He also needs to learn some toxicology. Everything is toxic, including water.
So saying "fluorides are toxic" doesn't mean anything, unless you talk about the dose.
In fact the effects of low and moderate levels of fluoride are well known.
Plenty of people grow up in areas where the natural fluoride levels are much higher than any produced by fluoridation schemes.
My Aunt is one of them. As a consequence, she has mottled teeth.
Lets be clear about what that means.
She has definite symptoms that prove that she was exposed to higher levels of fluoride that are added to water supplies.
And yet she is perfectly healthy in other respects.
The first symptom of chronic fluoride exposure is mottled teeth.
If you keep the exposure below the level where that effect occurs, you will not get any other symptoms.

You may be wondering if I read the article about thyroid effects.
I did.

Here's the paper
http://www.slweb.org/galletti.html

It turns out that people with overactive thyroids are affected differently by low level fluoride exposure.

Here's what it actually says.
"Previous studies on animals and human beings did not demonstrate any significant and reproducible alterations of thyroidal function due to small doses of fluorine which did not exceed a daily intake of 2.0 mg (approximately the doses used for prophylaxis of dental caries)"
and
"Since the hyperfunctioning thyroid is a more sensitive structure than the normal gland, we studied the effect of fluorine on patients with hyperthyroidism"

In this group they sometimes found an improvement due to the presence of fluoride.
"In 6 of the 15 patients studied, the symptoms of hyperthyroidism were relieved and both the BMR and the plasma PBI concentration fell to normal levels"

And, remember that these people (because of a pre-existing condition) are more sensitive to fluoride.
It would have less effect on the rest of us and, in particular it would have much less effect on the people with under performing thyroids (on whom the effect might be deleterious.


You see what happens here.
If you actually go to the real literature and read it and see what it actually says, it certainly does not condemn fluoridation.
It might even be thought of as recommending it as being beneficial, not just because of its effect on tooth decay, but also on hyperthyroidism.

Endimion17 - 10-6-2012 at 04:21

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  
Look the chemical industry wants to be a growth industry. Fluoride makes an excellent rat poison, but there aren't enough of rats (at least in USA, but perhaps I wrong on this) to make this happen. Lowing the toxic levels of fungicides helps a little even if it does poison the fruit and we can't export it (we have this problem also with our diary products where guidelines has been greatly raised by the EPA at the request of Industry also).

Now China (and even Canada for dairy) is not accepting our bogus guidelines. Has the world gone mad for not promoting Industry profits over concerns of the health of its people and the well being of the planet based on some country's unbiased science? Thank god for good old crony capitalism in the USA where your lobbyists will get you what you can afford to buy!

I also recall reading that the reputed benefits of fluoride in drinking water with respect to tooth decay may be completely unfounded. But if the USA can make money by selling rat poison to add to drinking water, that's a good thing, isn't it?


[Edited on 10-6-2012 by AJKOER]




This stuff is in most cosmetic products, and sometimes it's even added to food.

You call yourself a chemist? Pffffff, LOL.

weiming1998 - 10-6-2012 at 04:51

Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Morgan needs to learn some chemistry.
For example, the fluoride ion doesn't know or care if it was introduced as the sodium or calcium salt so this bit ". Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, " is meaningless, and so are the conclusions drawn from it.

He also needs to learn some toxicology. Everything is toxic, including water.
So saying "fluorides are toxic" doesn't mean anything, unless you talk about the dose.
In fact the effects of low and moderate levels of fluoride are well known.
Plenty of people grow up in areas where the natural fluoride levels are much higher than any produced by fluoridation schemes.
My Aunt is one of them. As a consequence, she has mottled teeth.
Lets be clear about what that means.
She has definite symptoms that prove that she was exposed to higher levels of fluoride that are added to water supplies.
And yet she is perfectly healthy in other respects.
The first symptom of chronic fluoride exposure is mottled teeth.
If you keep the exposure below the level where that effect occurs, you will not get any other symptoms.

You may be wondering if I read the article about thyroid effects.
I did.

Here's the paper
http://www.slweb.org/galletti.html

It turns out that people with overactive thyroids are affected differently by low level fluoride exposure.

Here's what it actually says.
"Previous studies on animals and human beings did not demonstrate any significant and reproducible alterations of thyroidal function due to small doses of fluorine which did not exceed a daily intake of 2.0 mg (approximately the doses used for prophylaxis of dental caries)"
and
"Since the hyperfunctioning thyroid is a more sensitive structure than the normal gland, we studied the effect of fluorine on patients with hyperthyroidism"

In this group they sometimes found an improvement due to the presence of fluoride.
"In 6 of the 15 patients studied, the symptoms of hyperthyroidism were relieved and both the BMR and the plasma PBI concentration fell to normal levels"

And, remember that these people (because of a pre-existing condition) are more sensitive to fluoride.
It would have less effect on the rest of us and, in particular it would have much less effect on the people with under performing thyroids (on whom the effect might be deleterious.


You see what happens here.
If you actually go to the real literature and read it and see what it actually says, it certainly does not condemn fluoridation.
It might even be thought of as recommending it as being beneficial, not just because of its effect on tooth decay, but also on hyperthyroidism.


Exactly. Also, I'd like to elaborate on a few points:
1, Traces of NaF/fluorosilicates do exist in natural water supplies. NaF, in particular, even exists as mineral deposits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villiaumite)

2, CaF2 is nowhere near the insolubility of BaSO4. You are about a couple orders of magnitude off. To see if CaF2 will really leach into the water supplies, I can do a simple calculation. According to Wikipedia, CaF2 has a solubility of 0.0016 g/100 mL (20 °C). So a saturated solution of CaF in water is about 0.0016% CaF2, which roughly boils down to 16ppm, 8 times higher than the levels of fluorides in fluoridated water. Where there are deposits of CaF2 near/in rivers, it can dissolve a small amount that is ingested by both animals and humans without ill effects. As CaF2 is an ionic compound and water is a polar solvent, the dissolved CaF2 is in the form of F- and Ca2+ ions, exactly like the F- ions artificially added.

3, I see a lot of people comparing fluorides to rat poison, including on this thread. That is horribly, horribly wrong. NaF/fluorosilicates have an LD50 on mice and rats at about 100mg/kg. That means 10mg for a 100g rat. Might not seem a lot, but to get a rat to eat 10mg of it in bait, you have to use a lot of it. Besides, the route for fluoride poisoning is not like mercury or lead poisoning, where it slowly accumulates in your blood and brains, and gradually affects your body. Chronic fluoride poisoning affects almost entirely bones and teeth. Only acute poisoning has any sort of effect on liver, brain, blood, etc. That is because the fluoride ion mostly accumulates, but does so in the bones because of its strong affinity for calcium, forming complexes that does not dissolve nor gets absorbed into any other part of the body. Less than 1% goes anywhere other than bones. Thus, you have to ingest a certain amount of fluoride (higher than in fluoridated water) in a limited amount of time before other adverse effects starts to occur. Chronic poisoning does affect other organs to some extent, however the dose taken daily have to be higher than in normal fluoridated water supplies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity

4, Peoples, get in your heads that if the molecule is the same, it does NOT matter whether it comes from a forest or a factory!

Morgan - 10-6-2012 at 07:10

1.Villiaumite is a RARE halide mineral composed of sodium fluoride, NaF. It is very soluble in water and some specimens fluoresce under long and short wave ultraviolet light. It has a Mohs hardness of 2.5 and is usually red, pink, or orange in color. It is toxic to humans and should be handled with care.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villiaumite

"They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form COMMONLY found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html
— Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.

2, CaF2 is nowhere near the insolubility of BaSO4. You are about a couple orders of magnitude off.

"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is ANALOGOUS to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."

3, I see a lot of people comparing fluorides to rat poison, including on this thread. That is horribly, horribly wrong. NaF/fluorosilicates have an LD50 on mice and rats at about 100mg/kg. That means 10mg for a 100g rat. Might not seem a lot, but to get a rat to eat 10mg of it in bait, you have to use a lot of it.

A small 100 gram tube of toothpaste containing 500mg NaF has enough fluoride to kill my less than 4kg dog 25 times over according to the Merck Veterinary Manual. Just twice the rat dose of 10mg. Rats are hardly little creatures.
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1 mg/kg. Fluoride (75-90% absorbed by 90 min) lowers serum calcium and magnesium. Clinically, gastroenteritis and cardiac (ventricular tachycardia and ECG abnormalities) and nervous signs may be followed within a few hours by collapse and death."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...

This is an article from the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy organization, who also had an article in my latest USAA magazine of the 12 foods that you want to buy organic because of high pesticide levels which by the way includes natural fluoride pesticides as with grapes. Recall Europe won't buy our wines with over 2mg per liter fluoride.
Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans
“Due to a failed regulatory system and suspect practices by some in the pet food industry, countless dogs may be ingesting excessive fluoride that could put them at risk,” Olga Naidenko, Ph.D, lead researcher of the EWG-sponsored study, said."
"An average dog who drinks adequate water daily would be exposed to 0.05 to 0.1 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight, depending on the dog's weight and water consumption. But those dogs who eat food high in fluoride, day in and day out, may be exposed to unsafe levels of fluoride."
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...

I wonder if the villi could be considered like delicate corals and you add the wrong kind of water to the tank? This guy might not have it all right, but some facets seem plausible.
"Acute fluoride poisoning will first result in severe damage to the intestinal lining, causing acute villous atrophy of the small intestine, the same lesion found in celiac disease and other food intolerance). It is clear that the adaptive viruses in our villi don’t like fluoride at this level and can cause the villi to quickly shrink away in order to prevent further absorption of this potentially lethal toxin. As much as we don’t like the symptoms associated with this intestinal process (nausea, diarrhea, cramping, gas), it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent more life-threatening reactions to this toxin, such as kidney failure. But if the exposure is overwhelming, the blood levels can rapidly rise and more serious signs can occur."
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...


Lastly ...
"So saying "fluorides are toxic" doesn't mean anything, unless you talk about the dose."

That's a good point. When you mention NaF/fluorosilcates and rats I was curious if the 10 mg lethal dose was from NaF or one of the fluorosiicates because the data would, as you say, be meaningless unless you talk about dose.


[Edited on 10-6-2012 by Morgan]

unionised - 10-6-2012 at 09:01

"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is ANALOGOUS to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."

It's not a good analogy. BaSO4 has such a low solubility that it's essentially harmless.
However CaF2 is soluble enough (just) that a solution of it would be toxic.

The comparison of fluoride in toothpaste with rat poison is a bit silly too.
Sure toothpaste with 1400 ppm of fluoride in it would be toxic if you (or your dog) ate lots.
But fluoridated water contains about a thousand times less.
Can you see the dog making its way through 20 tubes of toothpaste?
If so then you should look after it better.


This too is irrelevant
"Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans"
Sure, we know that lots of it is toxic. That's why there are rules about how much of it is tolerated in food.
If people break the law then that's their fault and it has nothing to do with fluoridated water has it?


Morgan - 10-6-2012 at 12:42

Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is ANALOGOUS to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."

It's not a good analogy. BaSO4 has such a low solubility that it's essentially harmless.
However CaF2 is soluble enough (just) that a solution of it would be toxic.

The comparison of fluoride in toothpaste with rat poison is a bit silly too.
Sure toothpaste with 1400 ppm of fluoride in it would be toxic if you (or your dog) ate lots.
But fluoridated water contains about a thousand times less.
Can you see the dog making its way through 20 tubes of toothpaste?
If so then you should look after it better.


This too is irrelevant
"Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans"
Sure, we know that lots of it is toxic. That's why there are rules about how much of it is tolerated in food.
If people break the law then that's their fault and it has nothing to do with fluoridated water has it?




Let's do some simple math. Dog dies at 20mg NaF. Tube of toothpaste contains 500mg NaF. So it's not 20 tubes of toothpaste she, my 4kg small dog would have to eat. The tube has enough sodium fluoride to kill her 25 times over, one tube of toothpaste.

"A 100-g tube of fluoride toothpaste may contain 75-500 mg of sodium fluoride, depending on the brand." (A family size tube is even larger than the 100 g tube)
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1 mg/kg."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...


[Edited on 10-6-2012 by Morgan]

unionised - 10-6-2012 at 12:54

Did you miss the point deliberately, or were you not paying attention?

The water has about a thousand times less fluoride in it.
So, even if something is 50 fold overkill then, if you dilute it 1000 fold it becomes 20 fold shy of being lethal.

Anyway, just in case you missed it again.

The water has about a thousand times less fluoride in it than the toothpaste.

You seem to think you are posting in a thread about toxicity of household products to pets.
The thread is about fluoridation of water.
And the important issue there is that The water has about a thousand times less fluoride in it than the toothpaste.

AndersHoveland - 10-6-2012 at 14:16

I do not think adding flouride to water is a good idea. Most of this fluorine will be ingested rather than forming a protective coat on the teeth. While high fluoride levels in well water are natural in a few places in the world, with few obvious human effects, this does not mean that it is a good thing. Often in the USA, much of the fluoride added to water is actually in the form of sodium hexafluorosilicic acid, since it is a cheaper byproduct from industry. Not that it is relevent here, but at much high concentrations, hexafluorosilicic acid solutions can give off fumes that can lead to silicosis in the lungs with long term exposure. Whether long-term ingestion of NaSiF6 could have any potential affect on the lungs, even if not clinically significant, is more doubtful. Adding fluoride to water has a very different cost-benefit ratio than brushing teeth with fluoride.

Some dentists have recommended only brushing one's teeth twice a week with flouride toothpaste, being sure to rinse all the toothpaste out afterwards, while using a non-fluoride toothpaste the other times. "Ayurvedic" toothpaste is very popular in India, and has been proven to reduce gum disease and prevent cavities. Brushing ones teeth with a paste of baking soda is also effective. I think it is completely ridiculous to suppose that brushing ones teeth with fluoride is a necessary thing. The best thing you can do for your teeth is to eat more whole grains and vegetables, and avoid sugary foods. Brush your teeth after drinking milk. The sugar in fruits does not contribute to the growth of bacteria in the same way that refined sugar (sucrose or glucose) does, but the higher acidity can be corrosive. Be sure to rinse your mouth out with water after eating acidic fruits such as oranges, or brush with baking soda.

Adding chloramine to water is not a particularly good idea either. Goldfish will die after one or two days in chloramine-treated water, unless the chloramine is first neutralized with thiosulfate. Chloramine partially hydrolyses to hypochlorous acid, and this can react with organic compounds to form chlorinated carcinogens.

weiming1998 - 11-6-2012 at 01:12

Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  
1.Villiaumite is a RARE halide mineral composed of sodium fluoride, NaF. It is very soluble in water and some specimens fluoresce under long and short wave ultraviolet light. It has a Mohs hardness of 2.5 and is usually red, pink, or orange in color. It is toxic to humans and should be handled with care.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villiaumite

"They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form COMMONLY found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html
— Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.

2, CaF2 is nowhere near the insolubility of BaSO4. You are about a couple orders of magnitude off.

"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is ANALOGOUS to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."

3, I see a lot of people comparing fluorides to rat poison, including on this thread. That is horribly, horribly wrong. NaF/fluorosilicates have an LD50 on mice and rats at about 100mg/kg. That means 10mg for a 100g rat. Might not seem a lot, but to get a rat to eat 10mg of it in bait, you have to use a lot of it.

A small 100 gram tube of toothpaste containing 500mg NaF has enough fluoride to kill my less than 4kg dog 25 times over according to the Merck Veterinary Manual. Just twice the rat dose of 10mg. Rats are hardly little creatures.
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1 mg/kg. Fluoride (75-90% absorbed by 90 min) lowers serum calcium and magnesium. Clinically, gastroenteritis and cardiac (ventricular tachycardia and ECG abnormalities) and nervous signs may be followed within a few hours by collapse and death."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...

This is an article from the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy organization, who also had an article in my latest USAA magazine of the 12 foods that you want to buy organic because of high pesticide levels which by the way includes natural fluoride pesticides as with grapes. Recall Europe won't buy our wines with over 2mg per liter fluoride.
Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans
“Due to a failed regulatory system and suspect practices by some in the pet food industry, countless dogs may be ingesting excessive fluoride that could put them at risk,” Olga Naidenko, Ph.D, lead researcher of the EWG-sponsored study, said."
"An average dog who drinks adequate water daily would be exposed to 0.05 to 0.1 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight, depending on the dog's weight and water consumption. But those dogs who eat food high in fluoride, day in and day out, may be exposed to unsafe levels of fluoride."
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...

I wonder if the villi could be considered like delicate corals and you add the wrong kind of water to the tank? This guy might not have it all right, but some facets seem plausible.
"Acute fluoride poisoning will first result in severe damage to the intestinal lining, causing acute villous atrophy of the small intestine, the same lesion found in celiac disease and other food intolerance). It is clear that the adaptive viruses in our villi don’t like fluoride at this level and can cause the villi to quickly shrink away in order to prevent further absorption of this potentially lethal toxin. As much as we don’t like the symptoms associated with this intestinal process (nausea, diarrhea, cramping, gas), it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent more life-threatening reactions to this toxin, such as kidney failure. But if the exposure is overwhelming, the blood levels can rapidly rise and more serious signs can occur."
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...


Lastly ...
"So saying "fluorides are toxic" doesn't mean anything, unless you talk about the dose."

That's a good point. When you mention NaF/fluorosilcates and rats I was curious if the 10 mg lethal dose was from NaF or one of the fluorosiicates because the data would, as you say, be meaningless unless you talk about dose.


[Edited on 10-6-2012 by Morgan]


The responses to your response:

1, The reason why the mineral form of NaF is so rare is that it is soluble in water. Thus, it can only exist in very dry places. Even if it is rare, it debunks the claims that NaF doesn't exist in nature.

2, Have you read my calculation on CaF2? A saturated solution can achieve a concentration of 16ppm CaF2. Rivers aren't always saturated with CaF2, but in places where deposits of it are near, the concentration of fluorides can naturally get over 2ppm, the amount in government-controlled fluoridated water.

3, Say an average man drinks 3L of water a day. He'd be taking 6mg of fluoride from water a day. 6mg is nowhere near the amount needed for acute poisoning, and by the time the man accumulates enough to have any sort of liver /brain poisoning, it would have already been long gone from the blood and are in the bones, where it can't be absorbed by the body. A 4kg dog would drink far less water than an average man, and the amount taken would be even less.

This is off topic, but eating organic food does not stop pesticides from poisoning you. Because you can still use pesticides in organic farming, just "natural" ones, which can be just as harmful as synthetic ones. Because of the use of manure as fertilizer, the food is more likely to be contaminated with various bacteria. Also, planting organic crops takes a larger amount of land than non-organic because of nutrient density, again not doing a favour to the environment.

[Edited on 11-6-2012 by weiming1998]

Morgan - 11-6-2012 at 05:03

When the author says the flouride commonly found in nature is CaF2 and that those "other" fluorides including NaF are not natural I think he stretches it a bit but he may be right that the vast majority of natural fluoride in the water is from CaF2. Did you see how much fluorite/fluorspar is mined each year? I can't find anything from a geologic source or what parts of the world may be different but it would be nice to know.

Natural occurrence
"Many fluoride minerals are known, but of paramount commercial importance are fluorite and fluorapatite.[5]Fluoride is usually found naturally in low concentration in drinking water and foods. The concentration in seawater averages 1.3 parts per million (ppm). Fresh water supplies generally contain between 0.01–0.3 ppm, whereas the ocean contains between 1.2 and 1.5 ppm.[9] In some locations, the fresh water contains dangerously high levels of fluoride, leading to serious health problems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

I wonder about the most commonly used flouride, hexafluorosilicic acid, for fluoridation in the US. Could any of it be reacting with the chlorine or chloramine in water?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine

The solubility calculation of 16ppm CaF2 from the previous post seems close to something I came across of 8 ppm. I don't know if temperature or other dissolved minerals would greatly affect that or not but anyway the two are fairly close.

If we look at toxicity of NaF it seems people can tolerate more than dogs. Recall dogs depart at 5-10mg NaF per kg according to the Merck Manual. It looks like NaF is lethal to dogs over people by a factor of 6?
"Soluble fluoride salts, of which sodium fluoride is the most common, are mildly toxic but have resulted in both accidental and suicidal deaths from acute poisoning.[5] While the minimum fatal dose in humans is not known, the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[28][29][30]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

If about half the fluoride you eat gets taken up by your body of say 6 mg per day, by the time someone reaches 80 years of age he will have accumulated 87.6 grams. Recall "Fluoride binds to Ca2+, Mg2+, and Mn2+, acting as a direct cellular poison (including bacterial cells, hence its use in dental hygiene)." (Merck Veterinary Manual)
Nobody really knows how much fluoride they get because of the combined ambiguous intake from food, air, and water. In some parts of China the water has very little fluoride while the coal they use constitutes the greatest source - from air.
"Because indoor fluoride from combustion of coal is easily absorbed in stored food and because food consumption is a main source of fluoride exposure, it is necessary to reduce airborne fluoride and food contamination to prevent serious fluorosis in China."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533102/


[Edited on 11-6-2012 by Morgan]

Morgan - 11-6-2012 at 17:41

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
I do not think adding flouride to water is a good idea. Most of this fluorine will be ingested rather than forming a protective coat on the teeth. While high fluoride levels in well water are natural in a few places in the world, with few obvious human effects, this does not mean that it is a good thing. Often in the USA, much of the fluoride added to water is actually in the form of sodium hexafluorosilicic acid, since it is a cheaper byproduct from industry. Not that it is relevent here, but at much high concentrations, hexafluorosilicic acid solutions can give off fumes that can lead to silicosis in the lungs with long term exposure. Whether long-term ingestion of NaSiF6 could have any potential affect on the lungs, even if not clinically significant, is more doubtful. Adding fluoride to water has a very different cost-benefit ratio than brushing teeth with fluoride.

Some dentists have recommended only brushing one's teeth twice a week with flouride toothpaste, being sure to rinse all the toothpaste out afterwards, while using a non-fluoride toothpaste the other times. "Ayurvedic" toothpaste is very popular in India, and has been proven to reduce gum disease and prevent cavities. Brushing ones teeth with a paste of baking soda is also effective. I think it is completely ridiculous to suppose that brushing ones teeth with fluoride is a necessary thing. The best thing you can do for your teeth is to eat more whole grains and vegetables, and avoid sugary foods. Brush your teeth after drinking milk. The sugar in fruits does not contribute to the growth of bacteria in the same way that refined sugar (sucrose or glucose) does, but the higher acidity can be corrosive. Be sure to rinse your mouth out with water after eating acidic fruits such as oranges, or brush with baking soda.

Adding chloramine to water is not a particularly good idea either. Goldfish will die after one or two days in chloramine-treated water, unless the chloramine is first neutralized with thiosulfate. Chloramine partially hydrolyses to hypochlorous acid, and this can react with organic compounds to form chlorinated carcinogens.


"There is also evidence that exposure to chloramine can contribute to respiratory problems, including asthma, among swimmers.[7] Respiratory problems related to chloramine exposure are common and prevalent among competitive swimmers.[8]"
"Chloramine use, together with chlorine dioxide, ozone, and ultraviolet, have been described as public health concerns and an example of the outcome of poorly implemented environmental regulation.[citation needed] These methods of disinfection decrease the formation of regulated byproducts such as alkyl chloroforms, which has led to their widespread adoption. However, they can increase the formation of a number of less regulated cytotoxic and genotoxic byproducts, some of which pose greater health risks than the regulated chemicals,[9] causing such diseases as cancer, kidney disease, thyroid damage,[10] and birth defects.[11]"

"Boiling the water for 20 minutes will remove chloramine and ammonia. Additionally, many foods and drinks rapidly neutralize chloramine without the necessity of boiling (e.g., tea, coffee, chicken stock, orange juice, etc.). SFPUC determined that 1000 mg of Vitamin C (tablets purchased in a grocery store, crushed and mixed in with the bath water) remove chloramine completely in a medium size bathtub without significantly depressing pH. Shower attachments containing Vitamin C can be purchased on the Internet, as well as effervescent Vitamin C bath tablets. [12]"
"Many animals are sensitive to chloramine and it must be removed from water given to many animals in zoos. Aquarium owners remove the chloramine from their tap water because it is toxic to fish. Aging the water for a few days removes chlorine but not the more stable chloramine, which can be neutralised using products available at pet stores."
"Chloramine must also be removed from the water prior to use in kidney dialysis machines, as it would come in contact with the bloodstream across a permeable membrane."
"US EPA regulations limit chloramine concentration to 4 parts per million (ppm). A typical target level in US public water supplies is 3 ppm. In order to meet EPA regulated limits on halogenated disinfection by-products, many utilities are switching from chlorination to chloramination. While chloramination produces fewer total halogenated disinfection by-products, it produces greater concentrations of unregulated iodinated disinfection by-products and N-nitrosodimethylamine.[16][17] Both iodinated disinfection by-products and N-nitrosodimethylamine have been shown to be genotoxic.[17]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine

Amazon.com review
VITASHOWER SF-1 (Vitamin C Shower Filter)
I work in the water industry and dont like showering in chlorine so I installed the vitashower and performed an analysis using my Hach Colorimeter. This is a device used worldwide to test Chlorine levels in water. The water coming into my house tested at 2.2 PPM (parts per million) of Chloramines. This is a fairly normal range for most water utilities. On both hot and cold water the Vitashower reduced it to 1.3 PPM. This is roughly a 40% reduction of Chlorine. So there you have it: 40% reduction out of the box!! Plus it is very cheap plastic and appears to be cracking as many others have reported. Although it is cheap you get what you pay for. It works a little bit!!


[Edited on 12-6-2012 by Morgan]

unionised - 12-6-2012 at 10:33

According to this
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/PublicationsCata...
world CaF2 production is about 5 million tons per year.
Who cares?

We all know that fluoride occurs naturally in water and that lots of it is bad for you.
So what?

There's certainly no obvious pathway for a reaction between chloramines and fluorosilicate.


Again, we know fluorides are toxic in large doses. So what?


"If about half the fluoride you eat gets taken up by your body of say 6 mg per day, by the time someone reaches 80 years of age he will have accumulated 87.6 grams. "
and if it doesn't, it wont. In any event, it would be buried in among roughly 10Kg of bone.
So what? It's not really a big problem there.

So that's a whole lot of essentially hot air. Most of it doesn't really relate to fluoridation of water.

And I presume the stuff about chloramines is a mistake. Surely you meant to post that in a separate thread because it's got nothing to do with this one.

Morgan - 12-6-2012 at 18:49

Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
According to this
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/PublicationsCata...
world CaF2 production is about 5 million tons per year.
Who cares?

We all know that fluoride occurs naturally in water and that lots of it is bad for you.
So what?

There's certainly no obvious pathway for a reaction between chloramines and fluorosilicate.


Again, we know fluorides are toxic in large doses. So what?


"If about half the fluoride you eat gets taken up by your body of say 6 mg per day, by the time someone reaches 80 years of age he will have accumulated 87.6 grams. "
and if it doesn't, it wont. In any event, it would be buried in among roughly 10Kg of bone.
So what? It's not really a big problem there.

So that's a whole lot of essentially hot air. Most of it doesn't really relate to fluoridation of water.

And I presume the stuff about chloramines is a mistake. Surely you meant to post that in a separate thread because it's got nothing to do with this one.


Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated tap water

"The lead pollution crisis of the Washington, D.C. water supply - and the culprit that caused it, the water disinfection chemical chloramine - is a powerful example of how things can go terribly wrong when water quality problems are considered and tackled in isolation."

"As described by Duke researchers, chloramine-induced lead leaching might be lessened by the addition of anticorrosivity agents during the water treatment process. Is that sufficient for protection of public health? We really don't know! Chloramine itself has been associated with severe respiratory toxicity and skin sensitivity. Overall, despite ongoing research, water treatment chemistry is still insufficiently understood by scientists and specific water quality outcomes depend on the particular chemical interactions found in each water treatment and distribution system."

"Here comes a second unpleasant "surprise" for those in lead-piped locations: fluorosilicates have a unique affinity for lead. In fact, lead fluorosilicate is one of the most water-soluble forms of lead. In fact, fluorosilicic acid has been used as a solvent for lead and other heavy metals in metallurgy. In industrial applications, chemical engineers rely on this acid to remove surface lead from leaded-brass machine parts."

Don't you just love chemistry
"In research published in the scientific journal Neurotoxicology, researchers found that the mixture of the two chemicals: disinfectant (whether chlorine or chloramine) with fluorosilicic acid has a drastically increased potency, leaching amazingly high quantities of lead."
http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/07/recipe-for-a-toxic-brew-le...

[Edited on 13-6-2012 by Morgan]

unionised - 13-6-2012 at 10:59

"Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated tap water"
No, not really.
What you would get is the very insoluble mixed fluoride/ chloride of lead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matlockite
or
http://www.galleries.com/Fiedlerite
depending on the pH.

You still haven't sussed out the difference between fluorosilicate and fluoride yet have you?
Incidentally, the fact that lead fluorosilicate is soluble proves the very opposite of the assertion " fluorosilicates have a unique affinity for lead".

Chlorides do have such an affinity and, if you mix a solution of , for example lead fluorosilicate with sodium chloride you will get a precipitate of the rather less soluble lead chloride.

In any event, people shouldn't be drinking water that has run through lead pipes.

Why is it that you keep citing pages that talk rubbish?

[Edited on 13-6-12 by unionised]

Morgan - 13-6-2012 at 14:30

Reader comments
"THREE CHEERS FOR EWG!!! However, I believe the statement: "Here comes a second unpleasant 'surprise' for those in lead-piped locations: fluorosilicates have a unique affinity for lead." could be misleading."
"Marc Edwards' 2004 testimony on DC water lead problems did not exonerate new homes constructed with plastic service lines and copper interior plumbing joined with lead-free solder. Seriously high lead water levels were found in new homes where the only source of lead would have been so-called "lead-free" brass water meters and/or chrome-plated brass faucets. In fact, so-called lead-free brass can have as much as 8% lead in it."

"The term “chloramine” as applied to drinking water disinfection needs to be explained."
(1) It is a general word applicable to products created by combining chlorine with ammonia under unspecified conditions;
(2) The ammonia can be in liquid form such as ammonium hydroxide or as a dry gas;
(3) The chlorine can be a dry gas or as aqueous liquid hypochlorite (“bleach”) or as a dry solid such as calcium or sodium hypochlorite;
(4) Whatever the sources of ammonia and chlorine may be, aqueous reaction product “chloramine” may have one, two, or three chlorine atoms bound to nitrogen...designated respectively “mono-chloramine” “di-chloramine” and “tri-chloramine”;
(5) Under some conditions an organic substance present may react to form some species of organic chloramine;
(6) The desired drinking water disinfectant chloramine is primarily mono-chloramine with a small amount of di-chloramine present;
(7) However this is not purchased from a supplier as a well-defined product, it is produced in the water plant generally by adding ammonia to water already chlorinated to some concentration level that may vary in concentration at the point and time of ammonia injection;
(8) It is not impossible that excess ammonia is injected.

How this affects extraction of lead from brass plumbing fixtures:
(9) Lead in "lead-free" brass is not distributed as a solute in copper, it is present in nodules;
(10) This in itself could foster galvanic corrosion;
(11) However, excess ammonia from production of chloramine could attack the copper in
brass thereby exposing lead nodules to fluosilicic acid derivative corrosion.
http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/07/recipe-for-a-toxic-brew-le...


"To enhance the machinability of brass, lead is often added in concentrations of around 2%. Since lead has a lower melting point than the other constituents of the brass, it tends to migrate towards the grain boundaries in the form of globules as it cools from casting. The pattern the globules form on the surface of the brass increases the available lead surface area which in turn affects the degree of leaching. In addition, cutting operations can smear the lead globules over the surface. These effects can lead to significant lead leaching from brasses of comparatively low lead content.[8]"

"In October 1999 the California State Attorney General sued 13 key manufacturers and distributors over lead content. In laboratory tests, state researchers found the average brass key, new or old, exceeded the California Proposition 65 limits by an average factor of 19, assuming handling twice a day.[10] In April 2001 manufacturers agreed to reduce lead content to 1.5%, or face a requirement to warn consumers about lead content. Keys plated with other metals are not affected by the settlement, and may continue to use brass alloys with higher percentage of lead content.[11][12]"
"Also in California, lead-free materials must be used for "each component that comes into contact with the wetted surface of pipes and pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures." On January 1, 2010, the maximum amount of lead in "lead-free brass" in California was reduced from 4% to 0.25% lead. The common practice of using pipes for electrical grounding is discouraged, as it accelerates lead corrosion.[13][14]"

ChemistryGhost - 28-10-2012 at 12:34

Fluoride occurs naturally in sea water at less than 1 part per million, but it's balanced by 1 part per million of boron. Boron and fluoride bonds to form boron trifluoride. Boron has been shown in studies to prevent and reverse skeletal fluorosis. Boron and tamarind help with the excretion of fluoride from the bones and body. Levels far exceeding 1 or 2 parts per million combined with lack of boron intake and poor health choices is what is terrible. There are mind controlling agents much more powerful than fluoride. Agents which are not implemented due to the lack of awareness and sheer effectiveness of them. Dehydration is far more dangerous. Even with so many "mind numbing agents" in food and water, we are still capable of so much intellectually. It's just that people far underestimante their own brain capacities and this, the self intellectual doubt and not giving it 115%, is the thing that leads to unquestionable stupidity. There are people who don't even remotely try being smarter. Dehydration is harmful, as is overhydration. If you're so worried about fluoride, take 3mg boron daily, have some tamarind juice, get distilled water, and make a petition to have fluoride reduced significantly or banned. But unless you have the money, it's drink their kool-aid or die of dehydration. Mmm.. artheritis 50 years later. Fluoride is good for teeth, however, and makes them more acid resistent. Just don't ingest it. Don't forget to brush! ;) :D
Here's a study on fluoride and IQ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-...

Personally, although I'm still smarter that the average joe, I have noticed my intellect decline significantly. Fluoride and other toxins are partially to blame. I will not give up! The last thing anyone should do is completely give up intellectually.

Fluorocarbons are safe. Fluorine forms very strong bonds to carbon. :cool:

Hydrogen fluoride eats glass. :o


[Edited on 28-10-2012 by ChemistryGhost]

unionised - 28-10-2012 at 13:21

" Boron and fluoride bonds to form boron trifluoride. "
Nope.
"Boron trifluoride reacts with water to give boric acid and fluoroboric acid." from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron_trifluoride
(I presume I don't need to cite a source fo the presence of water in the sea.)

"There are mind controlling agents much more powerful than fluoride"
For example, any that actually work.

" Even with so many "mind numbing agents" in food and water, we are still capable of so much intellectually. I"
Apart from alcohol and a few other things like it taken deliberately for their effect on the brain, what mind numbing agents are present in food and water?

"Fluorocarbons are safe. Fluorine forms very strong bonds to carbon"
Yes and no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluoroisobutene

Vargouille - 28-10-2012 at 13:32

Here is the actual study done by the Harvard students on the relationship between high [F-] and IQ. Note the number of caveats stated.

[Edited on 28-10-2012 by Vargouille]

unionised - 28-10-2012 at 13:42

Thanks for that. It's always good to look at the original data.
Perhaps the most important thing to learn from looking at the paper is that the biggest difference in IQ found in any of the studies they looked at was just 1%.
The overall best estimate was 0.5%

ChemistryGhost - 28-10-2012 at 13:45

Oh well, live and learn. I can't speak of the mind control agents that actually work. It's pretty difficult to synthesize them. It's out of reach for most amateur chemists. However, someone in a pharmaceutical lab can create them if they obtain the reactants and are smart enough.
People take some of these legal poisons deliberately and think it's ok. While some of the illegal research chemicals produce less damge. Alcohol is such a dangerous drug in my opinion. Most of you have plenty of years of experience in organic chemistry. I only recently discovered it and taken an interest.

Being astonished by the hidden wonders of the world. :cool:

chemrox - 28-10-2012 at 15:46

Water fluoridation has never been shown to improve anyone's dental health. My doctor has deep misgivings about it as do I. Cui bono? Fluorides are byproducts of aluminum processing. Also in Portland Oregon the departing Water Commissioner is now pushing for it. We think he has a job waiting in bottled water sales.

Vargouille - 28-10-2012 at 16:54

Yes, it has.

Water Fluoridation.

Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation

feacetech - 28-10-2012 at 19:43

HFA (H2SiF6) for water flouridation can come from the wet scrubing of super phosphate manufacture fumes

Depending on local laws and regulations this can be added to water with out any further processing apart from concentrating in the scrubber vessel and redilution prior to sale

It contains a number of contaminants
Amorphous Silica (Can be very fine um, nm size)
Iodine
Phophate (some process limits for example are max 1000 mg P/kg)

The liquid is a nasty brown stuff that etches glass and stains everything with a red brown idodine colour

Some places require it to be filted to remove the idoine (legislative requirement) others will purchase it as is.

Yum

Endimion17 - 29-10-2012 at 02:18

I've always been amazed how this forum, against all odds, attracts all kinds of oddballs. Crackpots, racial supremacists, religious nutcases... geez. :D

Morgan - 29-10-2012 at 07:40

For those that enjoy PET bottled water or PET bottled anything I guess, you get extra antimony. No telling what contaminants the cheaper brands of bottled water have and when you think about all the various contaminants, you can't help but wonder how they possibly interact and add up. Recall the chloramine/hydrofluorosilicic acid combo leaching lead from brass fittings.
"Antimony leaches from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles into liquids.[80] While levels observed for bottled water are below drinking water guidelines,[81] fruit juice concentrates (for which no guidelines are established) produced in the UK were found to contain up to 44.7 µg/L of antimony, well above the EU limits for tap water of 5 µg/L."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony

Contamination of Canadian and European bottled waters with antimony from PET containers.
"Natural water from Ontario bottled in polypropylene contained only 8.2 +/- 0.9 ng l(-1). Comparison of three German brands of water available in both glass bottles and PET containers showed that waters bottled in PET contained up to 30 times more Sb."
"As an independent check of the hypothesis that Sb is leaching from PET, the pristine groundwater from Canada (containing 2.2 +/- 1.2 ng l(-1) Sb) was collected from the source using PET bottles from Germany: this water contained 50 +/- 17 ng l(-1) Sb (n = 2) after only 37 days, even though it was stored in the refrigerator, and 566 ng l(-1) after six months storage at room temperature."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16470261

"The final "contaminant candidate list," released today, comes after an evaluation of about 7,500 chemicals and microbes. The EPA regulates more than 90 contaminants in drinking water already, setting maximum contaminant levels that water agencies must test for."
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/epa_...

unionised - 29-10-2012 at 12:37

Quote: Originally posted by ChemistryGhost  

Oh well, live and learn.
It's pretty difficult to synthesize them. It's out of reach for most amateur chemists. However, someone in a pharmaceutical lab can create them if they obtain the reactants and are smart enough.


Have you learned that you will be asked to back up assertions like that with evidence?

As far as I'm aware, "mind control drugs" only exist in bad sci fi and conspiracy theories.

AJKOER - 7-11-2012 at 16:59

Cost Benefit Analysis

Costs:

1. Potential poison especially to infants and small animals

2. Possible cancer causing agent.

Benefits

1. Reputed dental/tooth decay benefits. However, no recent large studies have be able to confirm this claim.

2. Adds profits to a narrow business segment (Chemical industry), sellers of bottled water and any resulting disease/deaths also promotes a narrow pay-for-service private health business segment. Governments sponsoring/paying health services should be less inclined to go along.

3. Lobbying dollars paid to local politicians.

Conclusion:

So, now I understand. Government officials, especially with large private health providers and benefiting business interests offering lobbying dollars are supportive, while consumers facing the potential of dying, sick infants and animals are, understandably, less inclined.

[EDIT] Any side 'benefit' of retarding/making your population more docile may be attractive to countries with large income inequality.


[Edited on 8-11-2012 by AJKOER]

elementcollector1 - 7-11-2012 at 17:23

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  
Cost Benefit Analysis

Costs:

1. Potential poison especially to infants and small animals

2. Possible cancer causing agent.

Benefits

1. Reputed dental/tooth decay benefits. However, no recent large studies have be able to confirm this claim.

2. Adds profits to a narrow business segment (Chemical industry) and any resulting disease/deaths also promotes a narrow private health business segment. Governments sponsoring/paying health services should be less inclined to go along.

3. Lobbying dollars paid to local politicians.

Conclusion:

So, now I understand. Government officials, especially with large private health providers, and Chemical companies supplying flouride related products, are supportive while consumers with dying, sick infants and animals are, understandably, less inclined.


Allow me to direct you here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70317-flouride/

And, in turn, here: http://www.ada.org/4045.aspx

I don't think there is a conspiracy here, because if there was a conspiracy, the government (the big, bad, unspeakably evil government) would use less detectable agents than fluoride for 'mind control' (which is likely to not be real).

Now, if the government seriously wanted mind control, they should probably experiment with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii

chemrox - 26-11-2012 at 16:13

There has been no paper ever published that showed any benefit from fluoridation of water at the concentrations used in municipal systems. On the other hand during my first college chemistry course along with a concurrent biology class, I became increasing alarmed about being forced to ingest any quantity of it. It's interesting that a retiring water commissioner is pushing for it in a city where the voters have rejected it three times. I wonder if he's joining a water bottling company after retirement?

Vargouille - 26-11-2012 at 17:58

Yes, there has.

Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation

Water Fluoridation

Dr.Bob - 27-11-2012 at 12:53

I don't see the point of arguing this. Well water (and every other source of water in the world) contains a number of dissolved minerals and many other contaminants, if you measure it carefully enough. There have been many places in the US with levels of F- from < 0.01 to higher than 10 ppm due to natural leaching of fluoride salts into water. Plus many other elements and compounds. People who have drank water with 1-10 ppm of F- most of their life were observed to have fewer cavities decades ago, but at levels of 5-10 and greater, other side effects were seen. But most municipalities have F- levels of not more than 1 ppm, which is not very high compared to many natural sources.

I would say overall that there is not overwhelming evidence that F- is really hugely beneficial, but also that there is little evidence that it is hurting anyone. Remember, people lived with fluoride in the water in many communities for hundreds of years before it was added. If you don't like it, it is not that hard to avoid or remove. I don't know that many people who drink much of tap water anyway, many drink bottled water, filtered water, canned or bottled beverages, etc. If you drink a lot of tap water and are worried, just buy a simple ion exchange type filter, it will remove many other things as well.

If you already have lead in the pipes or water supply, then fluoride should not be your main concern. Even that can be lowered with a simple filtration fit. There are plenty of much larger sources of risk to your health that are orders of magnitude higher than fluoride, like idiots texting-while-driving, driving drunk, excess drinking, or smoking.

"214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was -5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.

CONCLUSIONS:
The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects."

BMJ. 2000 Oct 7;321(7265):855-9.
Systematic review of water fluoridation.
McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, Sutton AJ, Chestnutt I, Cooper J, Misso K, Bradley M, Treasure E, Kleijnen J.

ChemistryGhost - 21-2-2013 at 15:03

Fluoride is not as helpful or as harmful as initially thought. I guess water can be purified via distillation and made free of most environmental gases by dissolving krypton. Maybe even krypton under pressure. Could you imagine nearly chemically pure kryptonated water? It might be very expensive and fancy. I wish they would have that! :D "20$ hydrogen oxide (H2O, Water). Now noble-ated with krypton. We now carry argonated and neonized water" :D It's a cool funny thought!

Endimion17 - 21-2-2013 at 21:58

elementcollector1 - 22-2-2013 at 10:30

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  

My thoughts exactly. This discussion is ridiculous, and neither side has managed to prove anything to the other. Anti-fluoride is still claiming there's no proof that fluoride's good for you, with a host of other side-arguments, and pro-fluoride really doesn't care because a few ppm of F- in your water really shouldn't hurt you by biological, toxicological and mental standards. Again, this is four pages of back-and-forth, sometimes with the same exact citations. Why are we arguing about this again?